School age

A report commissioned by the Bracks Government has shown that lowering the school starting age will disadvantage younger children. However, the federal government has argued that lowering the school starting age boosts economic productivity and increases the number of students completing year 12.

What do you think? Should our children be starting school younger?

This forum is now closed.

Posted
July 4, 2006 8:53 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

"Canberra has argued that lowering the school starting age would boost economic productivity and increase the number of students completing year 12."

What now!?
Deprive Australians of their early childhood for economy?????
HOW STUPID!!
If the child and his/her parents are ready and believe that's the right thing for them to do, that's fine. It's good to have that as an option, but forcing it to everybody is oh, so wrong! Is Howard wants to destroy humans in this country just like Bush/Cheney doing to their people, simply for their greed? And when will the citizens wake up to the fact that current political system cannot do the right job in every aspect?

Posted by: C Loverain on July 5, 2006 9:02 AM

Good for the economy, bad for the kids? What sort of society have we become when policies like this are actually being considered? This is economic rationalsm gone mad.

Posted by: Sean on July 5, 2006 3:30 AM

I have learnt so much from this forum...
My 10 years (plus) of tertiary education was such a waste...

Jolanda Challita told us that "What we need to do is to re-design the Education System so as to cater for all our kids". And, that she believes "There is serious educational disdvantage [sic] by grouping according to chronological age."

What suggestion do you have for the new design?

"Streaming" children into classes on the basis of ability was "pooh-poohed" by the government and a multitude of 'educational gurus' years ago. It won't be coming back into vogue in a big hurry, as it is not in line with the Howard Government's economic model. Furthermore, this unfortunate fact makes your latter statements stand out for what they really are - 'wishful thinking' (see following):
"If we take away the need for our children to compete in academic competition in
order to get access to education?"
"...appropriate education is available to all students..."
"The competition is grossly unfair. Why do we allow our Government to do this to our
children?"

A few people must have voted for the Howard Government? I'm not sure how it would have got there otherwise?.

Lennie Hugo - the same applies to your statement:
"Anyway NSW will be a lot smarter after the 2007 state election when we throw this disgusting Iemma Labor Government out on its arse [sic]."

Despite all of the side-track issues being raised, one comment, by Sanja, comes fairly close to some of the main issues we should be considering:
"The most important period in a child's life with respect to their ability to learn and absorb information is between ages 0 and 5. We live under a misconception that [the] best and most comprehensive learning is done at school when in fact we are actually forcing limits on our kids by structured curriculums...[sic]"

Countless research hours in childhood psychology and development has shown time, and time again, that the formative years of a child's social, emotional and academic education initially lies with its parents. That is, the parents have a MAJOR impact on a child, and on establishing its future values and belief structures.

Overall, I think that Neville's comments were most enlightening. It was refreshing to see such honesty, and I could empathise with the unintended consequences of the 'parental push' to start their children in 'institutionalised education' and 'consumerism' far too early:

"When I got to year 10 I was still only 12 and all my classmates where at least 14 - too big a gap at that age to be accepted and included. I was bullied and harassed so much I dropped out at 14 and it took many years to recover the lost ground..."

Children at school (no matter what age), ARE bullied and harassed for being different - either: Too young, too old, too ethnic, too 'Anglo', liking AFL football and not soccer or rugby, for enjoying reading, for not having an iPod or mobile phone, for not chopping and colouring their hair, for having their lunches packed for them instead of buying junk-food from the school canteen, etc. However, as these problems are a pretty good reflection of what happens within the larger Australian society, I doubt that this is an earth-shattering revelation to anyone.

However, to end the re-cap of what I actually learnt, I'd like to say two things:
1. Way to go Max! The quote from Dewey (1859-1952) was spot on.
"Education is a social process... Education is growth... Education is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself."
2. Learning is a life-long process. The day I stop learning is the day that I die. My parents started the process but it is up to me to continue it. This means that I don't close my eyes or ears to new ideas, and that I take responsibility for all that I do; especially when passing on this same concept to my own children...

Posted by: Vee on July 5, 2006 1:21 AM

I started school shortly after my fifth birthday, and I always did very well in school, despite being among the youngest. One of my friends started at four and nine months, and never did particuarly well, and ended up moving schools and repeating a year. Another friend of mine started school at six, nearly seven, and was average. I know somebody who began at the youngest possible age (her fifth birthday was the cut-off date) and she is one of the smartest people I know.

So I personally think the age range to start school should be broadened. Lowered minimum and raised maximum, so the parents can decide when the child is ready to begin their school life.

Posted by: Kate on July 5, 2006 12:24 AM

Over and over again we have ignorant politicians spruiking opinions on subjects about which they know absolutely nothing. This is just another such subject. Everything that comes out of a politicians mouth is designed to ensure his ongoing employment, and they continually pander to the lowest common denominator. What does Howard know about teaching? What does Nelson know about teaching? I started school at 4 1/2. While it didn't bother me during Primary School, I started to fall behind during High School, simply because I was not mature enough. I entered Teachers College aged 16 1/2. It has probably affected my entire life.

Posted by: John on July 4, 2006 10:48 PM

There can be a difference in learning styles of 7 years within one primary class group. I don't think lowering the starting age for school beginners can can solve that type of problem which occurs during the junior years of education at school.

Posted by: judy dempster on July 4, 2006 10:06 PM

Even more studying? ..can I ask why(?) Having been an consulting electrical engineer for 12 years I can say that I rarely ever use more than year 8 maths. What is worse is that many of us recall little more than year 10 maths!

Posted by: Savva on July 4, 2006 8:59 PM

My sister and I both started school rather early. As children we were encouraged to start formal learning (classroom context) very early, perhaps the result of having teachers in our extended family. Fortunately, the plan worked for both of us. We started school in a third world country and managed to skip grades 6 and 2 when we continued our schooling here in Melbourne. Starting school at age 4 is not at all a bad idea. Children are sponges at that age.

Posted by: Mary on July 4, 2006 7:40 PM

What about this for an idea?

Why not skip school all together? We could take all these unproductive children and put them to work in little kiddy factories. Of course, those who can afford to pay could choose a really top notch factory that would guarantee maximum productivity and reward for minimum individual input. Those less privileged will just have to sweep the factory chimneys.

Or maybe it's time the Howard government left the building...

Posted by: C.D. on July 4, 2006 7:24 PM

What about this for an idea?

Why not skip school all together? We could take all these unproductive children and put them to work in little kiddy factories. Of course, those who can afford to pay could choose a really top notch factory that would guarantee maximum productivity and reward for minimum individual input. Those less privileged will just have to sweep the factory chimneys.

Or maybe it's time the Howard government left the building...

Posted by: C.D. on July 4, 2006 7:23 PM

As a kindergarten teacher and parent, I see both sides of the issue and I am constantly having discussions with parents about their child's development and readiness to move on.
As teachers we know all children develop at different rates and setting a school starting age is only a guideline and cannot ensure that all children will be ready for school at the set age. We advise parents based on our observations of their child in the pre-school setting and then it is up to them to decide what they want to do.

As parents, we faced the same decision with our first child and seeing he was not socially and emotionally ready for school chose for him to repeat kindergarten. He went on to develop into a confident, high achieving student (now at uni) who is socially confident and happy and we know we did the right thing for him. Sending him to school when he was not ready I am sure would not have allowed this self confidence and thus success.

I have not seen any sign of parents holding their children back to give them an advantage at school and, in fact, experience more resistence to children repeating kindergarten. Parents seems to see it as their child failing in some way which is a strange notion since, as I said, all children develop at different rates and as long as a child is happy and confident in the educational setting they will achieve to the best of their potential - but only when they are ready to do so!

Posted by: Kim on July 4, 2006 4:55 PM

My first born was held back because he was an end of June
Birthday and at the time people frowned if you sent them early. He has always insisted that we made a mistake to hold him back and I agree with him.

My second born was 6 weeks away from cut off and had to wait for the next year. She was an exceptionally intellectually gifted child and so advanced acadmically that she suffered severe boredom, frustration and psychological distress because the system would not differentiate the curriculum to meet her obvious needs. Eventually she skipped a year but it didn't make a difference.

They are both in their last few years of high school and their memories of their early school days are filled with frustration, boredom, anguish and often despair.

None of this would have happened if the system catered for children's needs instead of catering for our children's age.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on July 4, 2006 4:50 PM

Something to think about Mr Howard..

"Education is a social process...Education is growth...Education is, not a preparation for life; education is life itself."
Dewey, John Philosopher (1859-1952)

"The secret in education lies in respecting the student."
Emerson, Ralph Waldo American poet, lecturer and essayist (1803-1882)

"Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education."
Kennedy, John F U.S. President

I don't see the word productivity in there.

Goodnight all.

Posted by: Max on July 4, 2006 4:35 PM

In my 22 years working in education including the past 17 as principal I have not had one parent who regretted keeping their child home for an extra year but plenty who regretted sending their child early!

Posted by: Mick on July 4, 2006 3:48 PM

Kate im so happy you finished in the top 5-10% of the school do you think really 1 year would make a differance?

Posted by: Derrick on July 4, 2006 3:47 PM

The most important period in a child's life with respect to their ability to learn and absorb information is between ages 0 and 5. We live under a misconception that best and most comprehensive learning is done at school when in fact we are actually forcing limits on our kids by structured curriculums, various levels of competencies as far as teachers are concerned, structured/rigid enviornoment which does not cater to all different personality types. The school age (4 or so) is already too low. We should school proof our children by instilling confidence in their abilities and views during this most impressionable period - schools simply are not equipped to do this.

I could read fluently at 3, knew all my colours and was pretty good at all the "intellectual" things parents generally wish for their kids at an early age. A perfect candidate for early school entry yet on a very good advice from a very good child development specialist I did not enter a schooling institution until I was 7. This did not in any way prove to be a disadvantage for me. In fact because my curiousity and love of learning developed naturally (and no, I was never forced by my parents and this is crucial)I enjoyed school a lot more than my younger brother who due to new regulations in my country was forced into an environment in which he had to do maths and not express his love for painting. When we arrived in Australia, even with my almost non-existent ability to speak English I skipped several grades.

I personally believe that parents are best judges of their child's readiness to be "institutionalised" and it frightens me that we are turning our children who are already facing many contradictions and tensions in their daily lives into economic prospects.

I live abroad now in a country with a very low starting age and an obsession for learning (in a schooling environment) - I would not wish this kind of existence for my children.

Posted by: Sanja on July 4, 2006 3:24 PM

I started School at the age of 4 and didn't have many problems.
I remember one of my teachers telling me that I was to stop reading at home because I was advancing too quickly for my classmates to which my mother laughed and continued to let me read anyway. I did get bored from time to time in my younger years but other teachers used it to thier advantage and asked me to try and help kids in my class who were not as advanced in thier reading.
The only other problem I experienced was being so young in year 12. I was 16 when I started year 12 (my birthday is in May) and was the third youngest in my year level. I found it hard when all of my friends were leaving me behind, going out and drinking etc but I got past that because I knew it wasn't personal. I finished year 12 at 17 and a half with the world at my feet. Finished an advanced Diploma at 19 and a half and entered University as a 'mature aged student' (ludacris I know) unfortunately I came to realise Uni was not where I wanted to be, but I'm only 21 and still have the world at my feet.
Starting school early for me was not a problem. I absorbed all of the information I could and enjoyed myself. I was always a good and well applied student and I worked hard and got good grades. Alot of my older friends did not.
I agree with everyone who has said that it depends on the personality of the child. I was a mini adult, and couldn't WAIT to go to school...some kids are ready, some aren't. Send the kids to school when they're ready...who cares how old they are, as long as they are learning.

Posted by: Gigi on July 4, 2006 3:10 PM

No i dont think it bad to start school at an early age. I went to school when i was 3 years and 7or 8 months and i didnt face any problems or issues with understanding or learning always did score well so did plenty of other kids with me. I think education is necessary at an early age. I come form different culture and was sent to school early thats didnt mean i was not enojying my childhood. Its necessary to slowly inclucate education into a child world so if it means 3 hours of schooling with breaks in between would be good and healthy for the kids. nothing wrong with it

Posted by: Early learner on July 4, 2006 3:07 PM

Has anybody else noticed that the only person in Canberra making any sense is Bob Brown? He is intelligent, caring and committed to a better Australia. Unusual for a politician. Give him some air time, please!

Posted by: Melissa Bull on July 4, 2006 2:43 PM

It may be handy for some parents who put career before parenting, unwilling to downsize their lifestyle for the sake of a new life. It may be handy for Howards backward glance at the future of Australia - not exactly progressive, now, is he? But it sure won't be handy for the dear little ones who have the right to live in the imaginative world at that age - they should be playing and exploring and not getting judged against their peers. How quickly we are moving towards a society standing still.

Posted by: Melissa Bull on July 4, 2006 2:38 PM

As a Reading Recovery teacher trainer we see many students on the program who were not ready to learn in their first year at school. As a result they fall behind the literacy levels of their peers and can start a spiral of literacy failure unless they receive one to one literacy intervention. As the demand for this program is high in some schools they may not receive the program and face a life of literacy difficulties. Boys seem to be disadvantaged more than girls. So any move to reduce the school entry age needs to be treated with caution and each case judged on its merits.

Posted by: sue rossa on July 4, 2006 2:23 PM

Sally the only way to make it fair and take away any advantage or disadvantage is, if a parent believes it is best to hold a child back a year or send them early, that when the child enters school they should be tested and placed in classes according to their ability and need.

If we take away the need for our children to compete in academic competition in order to get access to education and then subsequent career opportunities and make it so that appropriate education is available to all students at their ability and interest level with flexibility then everybody would benefit.

The competition is grossly unfair. Why do we allow our Government to do this to our children?

Posted by: Joland a Challita on July 4, 2006 2:19 PM

Im not sure that there is a federal conspiracy theory here. No one denys that some children are ready for school at an earlier age than others. However there is a current trend emerging where people who can afford to keep their children down are doing so purely to give them an unfair advantage over the younger children. Not because it is needed. This means that the age difference in prep between the youngest and oldest child is huge. This situation is not fair on anyone. A uniform starting age across Australia seems to be one way to fix this problem.

Posted by: Sally on July 4, 2006 1:43 PM

My daughter turned five on 23/01/04 and WAS clearly ready socially for school. Her kindergarten teacher advised us our daughter would NOT benefit by being held back a year. Great advice and one the principal of the school agreed with. She started school at FIVE and is flowering beautifully at school.
The government appear hell bent on having everyone working all the time. Pre-school days are very formative and bonding days. What's the rush!

Posted by: Paul on July 4, 2006 1:32 PM

I think that what can be clearly seen by the discussion here is that every child is different and have different needs that need to be met at different/similar ages and/or stages.

What we need to do is to re-design the Education System so as to cater for all our kids.

Grouping children by chronological age across every subject as opposed to ability, interest and need is an administrative convenience.

Why cant our children be at a different year level in their areas of strength and being provided with support in their areas of weakness?

There is serious educational disdvantage by grouping according to chronological age.

There is serious educational disadvantaged being served by providing educational opportunities based on highest marks as not all children are in optimal learning environments and some are even being tutored and coached and some children are in disadvantaged environments and/or schools.

We need to support all our children and encourage them at whatever level they are at at any particular age and provide access to the highest level learning opportunities to every child that believes that they can do it and wishes to give it a go.

We need to allow children to progress through education at a level and pace that is suitable for them as individuals.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on July 4, 2006 1:30 PM

I like the old British idea of children commencing school in the term they turn 5 as against them starting school before then. However, girl children seem to adapt to school far quicker than boys, should we perhaps start boys a year later? Are the commonwealth govt going to provide more facilities and teachers?

Posted by: Sandi Nielsen on July 4, 2006 1:30 PM

My eldest daughter is now 6 and in grage 1. She began school on her birthday in Prep turning 5... Most of the class was already one year older. Now, she is holding her own with the Gr 2 curriculum, and speaks with the verbal dexterity of a 16yo... My son, now 5 began school at 4Y 10m. Did not attend Kinder but was supported at home and with my mum babysitting. He has had all the trouble about the place learning reading and writing, however his mathmatical skills and technical learning are better than his older sister who is only 13mths older.

The youngest child, a tiny 3yo girl who still wears size 1 clothes is almost old enough for 4yo kinder. However she is about 1/2 the size. I cant imagine her even going to school at this rate.

I have 3 children, all very different in ability, and very much supported by parents who treat them all the same. Surely the merits and abilities of each child should be paramount here, not the future economy of the country...or will costello's babies be tied into working contracts even before they are conceived?

Posted by: Deborah on July 4, 2006 1:29 PM

My son was born in March and could have started school in 2005. we choose to defer because he just was not mature enough and would have struggled. What a difference a year makes he is happy and confident and doing very well at school. My daughter on the other hand was ready for school at four, it just depends on the child and the decision must be based on individual needs rather than general rules.

Posted by: Mary on July 4, 2006 1:22 PM

Given that Victoria has an extra year of school and when most students finish they are older than those in other states I think it is a good idea to lower the starting age.

Posted by: LT on July 4, 2006 1:11 PM

My daughter turned five on 31/12/05 and was clearly not ready socially for school. Her kindergarten teacher advised us our daughter would benefit by being held back a year. Great advice and one the principal of the school agreed with. She started school at six and is flowering beautifully at school.
The government appear hell bent on having everyone working all the time. Pre-school days are very formative and bonding days. What's the rush!

Posted by: David Howard on July 4, 2006 12:41 PM

I think the logic behind the federal govt. pushing for a lower school starting age has more to do with getting the parents back on the tax roll sooner.. The earlier the kid starts school the sooner mum can find herself a fulltime job at Spotlight working for an ever decreasing minimum wage.

Posted by: Peter on July 4, 2006 12:23 PM

I am a walking bad example of starting school too early! I started at age 4 1/2 because to wait would have meant 5 1/2 and my mother did not want to wait to send me to school. In year one I was moved up to year 2 because it was said I was too smart and already was above year one, this meant that I was two years younger than the other kids in year three. When I got to year 10 I was still only 12 and all my classmates where at least 14 - too big a gap at that age to be accepted and included. I was bullied and harassed so much I dropped out at 14 and it took many years to recover the lost ground and eventually going to night school and not really being successful in my working life until aged into my late 20's. In hindsight I should have repeated a year or two but with the pressure on young people to succeed at school today means that would be very hard to swallow with the peer group pressure that would have been evident. I would certainly NOT recommend starting early as maturity to cope in all situations is paramount at a young age. Because of my experience I would like to see more emphases on support at all levels for all students and certainly students who show some difficulties during any phase of their education

Posted by: Neville on July 4, 2006 12:22 PM

As a teacher in japan i regularly see english schools offering english programs for kids at younger and younger ages. Recently i taught a 6 month old child. The parent was desperate for the child to learn english - unsurprisingly the child didn't care and indeed it was just glorified day care. On the flip side many japanese start school at 6 or 7 years old and basically study until they are 20. Then they enter uni. Between those times they are forced to study for various entrance exams (failure means being held back). They have to study for junior high school exams, high school exams and the notrious university entrance exams (much much tougher than australia). It comes as no surprise to me that a 23 year old japanese man/woman has the same level of maturity as a 16 year old in australia - its not until the late 20's that they 'grow up'. This i believe is due to the fact that they study too much. Sure study is important but you also have to have time to be a kid. Please australia don't follow the japanese model of more and more school as it doesn't produce smart people it only produces robots.

Posted by: Lucas on July 4, 2006 12:10 PM

I challenge any political commentator / interviewer with a any balls to put Howard on the spot and ask him.

Prime minister for the benefit of the Australian people, in your own words, define "Productivity".

And keep at him until he gives us a coherent and comprehensive answer.

Are you reading this Laurie or Kerry!

(I sure as hell know what it means, I've worked in engineering, design and manufacturing all my life)

Posted by: Max on July 4, 2006 11:49 AM

"Australia is not NSW". You're wrong. I started my school life in NSW and when we moved to Victoria, I needed to skip a grade so as to not repeat what I'd just done. In fact, I skipped year 6 and went straight into year 7. So, in fact the curriculum in NSW is a year AHEAD of Victoria. Not that it matters at ALL, for goodness' sake!

Now that the facts are clear on that one, can I just say that it's ludicrous to think that the year a child starts school is going to influence their intelligence. What a crock!

Posted by: Flick on July 4, 2006 11:47 AM

Yet again the Howard Government getting something so wrong.

Posted by: ben-e-boi on July 4, 2006 11:44 AM

Unless we go for zero parental discretion and have an age where school is mandated, like in the UK example, there is always going to be the 'problem' of some kids being on the young end of the age scale for their year.

My sister started school at 4 years and 4 months. My parents knew she was ready, and were able to find a school to take her on the understanding that she would repeat her first year.

Posted by: Timmy A on July 4, 2006 11:27 AM

I started school when I was 4 (my birthday is in June) and I don't recall coming across any difficulties. I passed everything (was always in the top 5-10% of my class) I didn't have any problem making friends.

I was actually quite pleased to be finished my VCE when I was 17, it meant that I would be qualified that much sooner (finish degree at 23 rather than 24) and it made me feel like I had heaps more time to do all the things I want to do.

Posted by: kate on July 4, 2006 11:21 AM

I think a big push behind Mr Bracks' statement is because a lot of children in Victoria are missing out on an early education. Yes, Victoria has 3 and 4 year old Kinder, but only for those who put their children's names down at birth... Places at these institutions are quite rare and many children do not get to experience Kinder and are then expected to be "ready" for Prep. Maybe it is his way of filling this gap.
On the upside, there are many children who are definitely ready for education at an early age. Perhaps if there were entry standards to meet, then age should be irrelevant. If the child is ready, send them to school  if not then dont.

Posted by: TJ on July 4, 2006 11:16 AM

I recall reading that children in Finland begin formal education at age 7, yet Finland has the highest literacy level in OECD countries. They have a year of non-compulsary preschool where the emphasis is on development and confidence and social skills - they don't go near a book.

Posted by: Collie on July 4, 2006 11:14 AM

Well said Max.

This is what you get from our current politburo when education policy is dictated by the Australian Business Council.

It is not about the kids, but about economic units. A complete disgrace...

Posted by: Mozza on July 4, 2006 10:59 AM

jackiew, this is the system used in South Aus and it is one that works. Yes, you need good teachers to handle children starting at different times of the year, but it also allowed children who needed longer than one year in Kinder/Prep/Reception (as it is known in SA) to stay there with no stigma attached. SA also have a smaller population base which doesn't hurt either.

My second daughter started school in NSW at age 4 years and 5 months. She is now 16 and half way through first year university. It hasn't hurt her and she was ready at every stage for the step up to the next level.

When she did start school, she was kept at home every Wednesday for the first term. This allowed her to get some rest mid week and the teacher and school were supportive. When second term started, she was didn't need the rest and was off full time.

And that's really the point. Every child is different and should start when they are ready, not when some bureaucrat says they should. They should also not be help back when they are ready.

By all means set the guidelines and then let the parents and teachers work it out.

Posted by: Tony on July 4, 2006 10:48 AM

the only thing i learned at school was if your good looking and good at sports then you will be popular, luckily for me i was both!

Posted by: Derrick on July 4, 2006 10:48 AM

The Liberal Party regime in Canberra subsumes everything to econopmic "productivity". This is the productivity that has brought us clapped out rivers, salinization, global climate change, species loss (the sixth great dying in Earth's history)etc. so that we can fill our lives with worthless junk. And as a nation fall deeper and deeper into debt. Oh, yes, and produce more and more billionaire parasites, our new role models. In the face of such existential priorities who cares what's in the interests of children? They have a role in production and consumption, that's all. They must reproduce themselves (perhaps a clue to Howard's hatred of gays) to ensure future producers and consumers, then die and get out of the way. Its Our Way of Life.

Posted by: Matthew McKenzie on July 4, 2006 10:45 AM

One of my daughters started school at 4 years 11 months. Within a few weeks she was complaining that she was in the wrong grade! That they were teaching her the alphabet when she already knew how to read and that she felt stupid doing Ants in the Apple A A A. She was a whiz at maths and she was so disapointed, disilusioned and upset. She complained that she did nothing all day and that she was just daydreaming her days away and that she felt humiliated with the work that she was being presented with. The school didnt' want to know.

She hated school refused to go, complained that the days were long and draining, we took her out and homeschooled her as she was becoming hostile and angry being forced to attend school. We found another school that agreed to skip her a year given her obvious ability and the fact that she was identified highly intellectually gifted. She went into a 1/2 composite at age just 5. She thrived. She is now 10 and in Year 6 and is functioning at the top of her year and within the top of the state. She will start high school age 10. She has no regrets and has never had any social problems or issues, she has plenty of friends and she blends well. She thanks us for having saved her from the torture of being in the wrong grade and level.

Sure if she had of stayed in her year level she would have come first, but she wouldn't have learned anything and you go to school to learn not to get marked.

Its not how old your child is that should be the determining factor it is their personality, ability, potential and their need.

Every child is different.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on July 4, 2006 10:36 AM

"I am constantly amazed why NSW people are so dumb". Now that is a smart comment!. If for one moment you think Sydney has an inferior climate to Melbourne you are even dumber that some one who could make the comment I have highlighted. Anyway NSW will be a lot smarter after the 2007 state election when we throw this disgusting Iemma Labor Government out on its arse.

Posted by: Lennie Hugo on July 4, 2006 10:34 AM

No no no....

Not a fan of this at all. Economic productivity should not even be a consideration in this thought process.

Some kids may be ready earlier, stimulate them with books etc BUT think ahead 10 or so years when children start to go through puberty. There is already the divide in maturity between girls and boys, some students not mature enough to cope with some subjects or responsibilities.

I know people that started earlier and they hate it. They are always the youngest, they are the smallest, least developed throughout school. When their friends start driving and drinking they are left behind. Students that were older that I knew were much more well adjusted in later years. I am a September baby so was one of the older ones, I definately would not want to be much more than 6 months younger than that when going through school.

It is not just intellectual intelligence that should come into it, so should emotional, social etc, and ALL age sub sections must be considered, not just the starting point. AND ECONMICS should NEVER come into it.

Bad idea.

Posted by: Wendy on July 4, 2006 10:32 AM

Isn't it wonderful and predictable to see our government comparing the future of our country, our children, to an economic sprocket. Well done, you have managed to reduce childhood down to a factor on an excel spreadsheet. It makes me want to wretch. Productivity seems to be the word of the week just as infrastructure was. I doubt any politician actually knows what it is or does but it sounds damn important.

Posted by: Max on July 4, 2006 10:29 AM

The argument of pushing kids to schools earlier for the sake of economic prosperity is weak. Consider the cumulative social costs of this solution in 10-20 years time as hoards of socially traumatised, or inadequately developed young people hit our welfare systems. Mr. Howard needs to look for another solution to prop-up his expensive, exclusive child-care system.

Posted by: Louise on July 4, 2006 10:23 AM

There is an article in today's age about a negative experience of starting a child young. Perhaps an article on a positive experience of a child started young would be of use to help the debate. The principle of the school my boys attend rightly stated, that cronological age is not the only indicator. My boy started this year, he is right on the cut-off date, and is coping just beautifully. This has alot to do with the nurturing that the school does, and his personality. I think that a story along these lines would help all those out there who stuggle with the question 'do I hold my child back?'

Posted by: Ann James on July 4, 2006 10:19 AM

Children should start school when they are emotionally and socially ready to start school (for some it is 4 and for other 6 or even 7).

Children should then be placed into classes and levels appropriate for their ability level and need in the different subject areas.

Every child is different, one size does and method not fit all.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on July 4, 2006 10:18 AM

BIg Brother should be axed!

Surely we could do much better with the air time and budget.

Posted by: Darin Lloyd on July 4, 2006 10:15 AM

I was a kid who went to school at 4 (nearly 40 years ago, admittedly!) and I wish I could have been kept back a year. I had no idea what was going on and found my first years of school very hard. I caught up, ended up with several postgrad degrees and working in education myself (!), so I don't think I suffered in the long run. But I do remember with dreadful clarity the fear of school when I was small.

Posted by: mia on July 4, 2006 10:10 AM

They should look at the starting ages in different states before they come out with a broad statement like this.

NSW schools already start a year later than Victoria and we already know that "Federal Policy" is based on Sydney centric Howard. He simply wants NSW to start a year earlier, not knowing that Victoria already starts a year earlier than NSW (probably why we have smarter kids).

The Federal government wants children to start earlier in NSW because Sydney DOES NOT send their kids to kindergarten BEFORE PREP.

Sydney kindergarten IS PREP so in effect they start their kids education ONE YEAR LATER than the rest of us by missing the first kinder year at 4. Often NSW kids don't start their prep year (they call it kinder) until 6 years old. Victoria even has a 3 year kinder, so effectively children can atend 3 year kinder, 4 year kinder, Prep, then year 1. There are no separate kindergartens in NSW. The first year of school is known as kindergarten in NSW and it is conducted at the school.

With Howards comments I assume he expects Victoria to move to educating kids at 2 years old and have a 2 year kinder.....what next?

Watching the Ch10 Davis and Kim show this morning I noticed the same ignorant comments from NSW.

One comment was Melbourne being the windy and rainy capital. May I point out (for the millionth time) that Sydney gets TWICE the rainfall of Melbourne in the 146 and 147 days of rain we each average each year and Melbourne does not get the severe winds of Sydney. Please check the daily weather observations Weather Bureau's website http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/

I am constantly amazed why NSW people are so dumb.

Posted by: Australia is not NSW on July 4, 2006 10:06 AM

Again soft targets for a quick fix for something that is not broken. This Liberal government spends far too much time fixing things like a communist would. "I think, so you should all think my way" mentality forcing children who may not be ready is a failed group think exercise. Parents, along with kinder teachers know if their children are ready. Do you want another bureaucrat deciding your child's future. I was worried my son was not ready for school, but he had the time to gain emotional maturity at kinder, and the same for my daughters. Howard et al, leave us alone, they are not your children! How about you fix job training for adults, the OECD showed you failed there.

Posted by: andrew on July 4, 2006 10:05 AM

The federal government says that younger kids entering school will "boost economic productivity"? I guess it will, if you want a generation of salary slaves to enter the workforce a year earlier than they would have otherwise. This is about the upcoming skills and labour shortage, not the welfare of children.

Posted by: Melanie on July 4, 2006 10:04 AM

back in the dark ages when I went to school in england the rules were that you started school at the beginning of the term in which you turned 5. No arguments and absolutely no possibility of deferring.
For some children this will have been too early. This system did have the benefit of staggering the school arrivals - teachers had a smaller class at the start of the year and as children joined they already had "experienced" class mates to show them the ropes.

I wonder how the costs stack up ... cost of teachers, extra class rooms, etc versus savings in payments to stay at home parents? If there is a lower school starting age will those parents on government benefits get a choice of whether their child is ready to go earlier or not?

Posted by: jackiew on July 4, 2006 9:56 AM

Lowering the starting age? The trend that I am seeing is kids starting school at a later age. I guess what this will mean is that children whose parents cant afford another year of child care fees will go to school earlier, and those whose parents can afford to wait will send the kids when they are ready.
Bit of a shame for those young kids who could really do with an extra year before they start school.....

Posted by: Lisa on July 4, 2006 9:43 AM

I have grandchildren, twins who started school before the age of 5 are now in year 8 and the youngest in their classes, they are also amongst the top 5 students in their classes - so this shows that starting school at an early age has not damaged them in any way - it seems to me that the children of to-day need stimulating earlier in life - and this is a wonderful thing. I myself was always the youngest in the class and it never affected me as well - go for it Melbourne